Krugman on Obama -- then and now

Chuck, San Diego — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:52:14 GMT

Is there a reason you didn't mention that ruth marcus is a republican?

Or why you didn't mention that in the second column Krugman pointed out that Obama is now out-republicaning the republicans by calling the edwards/clinton plans "socialism" or "govenment" plans?

every day it becomes more obvious that Barak is actually a bush republican.

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

david mizner, new york, new york — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:53:34 GMT

Weird post.

Krugman explains why his tone changed.

It changed, he said, he expected that Obama would fix the flaw in his plan; instead Obama--for political reasons--started blasting the concept of a mandate (even though his plan contains a mandate, for children.)

Surprise, surprise, Krugman is right.

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

Subba — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:09:51 GMT

May Bill kissed Krugman in between. I see that happening to quite a lot of people recently.

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

Dave, Queens, NY — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:09:59 GMT

What do you mean "political reasons"? Obama doesn't think individual mandates are good policy and he's explaining why. No shame in that.

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

jo — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:12:45 GMT

For anyone who wants to avoid political cheap points, here is a response from Austan Golsbee, he is one of our brightest economists right now and he is the adviser of Senator Obama. In 1993, anyone against Hillary's reform was demonized. I've read Professor Krugman this morning in the NY times, what i see is a liberal militant not a fair and balanced assessment by an economist of different plans.
There will be no healthcare reform if we tried to shove it down people throats. How are we going to force people to buy health insurance when they can't afford it? The only way to have a real universal coverage is by a single payer system, since we can't scratch everything and start all over again, our goal should be to help millions of Americans who don't have health insurance because they can't afford it by lowering costs. The best plan to do it is the one offered by Senator Obama. It has the best chance to be implemented. Mitt Romney plan in MA is today Hillary's plan. People should ask themselves why Governor Romney is running away from his record on this issue, The State has tried to impose a mandate and it is not working, worse than that health insurance costs have not gone down. Senator Obama is the only candidate who has made the promise that his plan will be fully implemented at the end of the first term. I suspect that neither Senator clinton nor Senator Edwards will make that promise.
http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/30/post_2.php

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

Keith, San Francisco, CA — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:18:09 GMT

"His answer was that Mr. Obama is reluctant to impose a mandate that might not be enforceable, and that he hopes -- based, to be fair, on some estimates by Mr. Cutler and others -- that a combination of subsidies and outreach can get all but a tiny fraction of the population insured without a mandate."

So Obama is relying on outreach and subsidies rather than coercion (mandate). What's the saying, you catch more bees with honey than vinegar? Seems like a reasonable approach.

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

Dave, CA — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:24:58 GMT

"So some people would take their chances -- and then end up receiving treatment at other people's expense when they ended up in emergency rooms. "- from Krugman's Clinton-puff piece

That's the complete and utter flaw in both Krugman AND Clinton's analysis. First, the patient receives a bill, not the government. Second, Clinton's plan results in the same circumstance, since she has no enforcement mechanism, she has no way to ACTUALLY force ("mandate") that everyone have health care. So even with Clinton's plan, people would "end up paying for other's medical bills" (which still isn't true in and of itself).

The MOST IMPORTANT part of a health care plan is its ability to make health care AFFORDABLE. Everyone has to remember, this isn't anything close to socialized health care, each of the plans still require that someone pay for their own health care policy. What matters most is that each person can actually BUY the health care policies because they aren't too expensive. You can "force" a poor person to buy a health care plan all day long, but in the end, if they can't afford it, it doesn't matter!

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

Rosemary, Califironia — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:30:42 GMT

There seems to be a concerted effort building to topple the Obama Candidacy. He must be really making head way out there. Because, all of a sudden he is being hit from the Post, the NYT, and some Black Leaders, who you guys, the Mainstream Media, insist on saying they speak for all African Americans as if their mouths are prayer books. Go figure.

So with this renewed attacks from the Clinton Campaign and the Press, (The Washington Post was the most disgraceful) has he now become the front runner without the adulation and coronation that was bestowed upon Sen. Clinton without her really saying anything of substance? Is this a double standard, peeking out its ugly head?

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

PulSamsara — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:31:11 GMT

Obama 2008.

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

R Craig, stall#2 — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:43:35 GMT

I like Obama. He didn't cover up for Mark Foley or Randy Craig or Duke Cunningham or Abramoff He doesn't lie about torture, domestic spying, WMD or Pat Tilman's death. He's never shot someone in the face. He didn't get five deferrments(my god, what a coward) or duck out on his Guard service. And he hasn't failed for six years to get Bin Laden, "dead or alive".

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

Erik — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:43:43 GMT

Obama in 08!

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

diane — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:47:18 GMT

krugman, as you noted and like many others on the left praised obama's health care as the most sensible and workable.
i wonder if it is not his plan but, something else with krugman. something that upset him or took issue with and is just trashing it because he no longer likes Obama himself.

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:59:57 GMT

The Hillary Clinton health plan, although potentially costly, does seem sound. However, I can't help but think that her presentation is a throw back to the inflexible, uncompromising position that she took in 1993. Not only will a massive overhaul meet with great resistance but it is will serve as a reminder of Hillary's early pitch for universal coverage in the early years of the Clinton administration. That perception of history repeating itself will doom the proposal to failure (even Democrats, representing red and purple states will be unable to support it).

I am empathic with Mr. Krugman's passion for the issue and feel that the logic of his stance on mandated coverage is well stated (especially in terms of shared costs and in terms of implementation of mandated coverage without penalization) but Hillary is the Moses to Obama's Aaron; where she will not be able to get it done, he will.

It may be, that in order to move mountains, we will have to start by moving hills . This process may have to be completed in a stepwise fashion in order that it be achieved. Biting off more than we can chew might result in choking on the politics of the issue.
Obama '08

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

John M., San Diego, CA — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 00:18:19 GMT

Krugman, like the Clinton campaign, is wrong when he seeks to draw a distinction of "universal" vs. "non-universal" coverage between the plans. A neutral analysis in 2003 suggested that the type of mandates suggested by Edwards and Clinton would still leave 1% of the population uncovered (presumably they would evade the mandate?) Obama's combination of incentives, it is suggested, would leave 3% uncovered (factcheck.org). These "uncovered" people in each case are people who are deliberately skirting the system. When they show up sick, we will pay for them, so they are not going to die in the gutter or anything. The question is whether the added value we get from a mandate system that makes an additional 6 million mostly very poor people pay for some tiny fraction of the care they receive outweighs the cost of implementing the mandate. How much $$ will it cost to process and crosscheck an additional tax form with all of the insurance companies, as Edwards proposes?

The New York Times has been the most consistently pro-Clinton of the major newspapers. Chalk it up to Hillary being a "home state" candidate, I suppose.

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

Rick/NC — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 00:21:31 GMT

The heck with a mandate but it should be law that those who don't buy insurance cannot be allowed to shift their healthcare costs to anyone else which is my persoanl beef with millions...they can afford insurance but they would rather pay for oversized houses in the right zip, car payments, cable, cell phones, beer, cigs, rec drugs, vacations, shopping, it goes on and on with some.

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

Tom Delaney — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 00:31:38 GMT

The answer is that Krugman has now decided to support John Edwards, so he's now attacking Barack Obama in addition to Hillary Clinton. He can barely go a column without expressing his love for Edwards. It's too bad he's turned that love into hate for Obama.

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

Erz Siam — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 00:33:22 GMT

That professor Krugman is professing for nothing. It is elementary reasoning and common sense that calling for a mandate on insurance does in no way solve the problem. The question is, if I am being forced to obtain an insurance and I cannot afford it, what happens then? Are you going to put me in jail or you are going to impose a fine on me? Come on professor, you know better than that. The tone of your write-up on Obama's plan stinks of bias and Clintonisque. We the Obamaians still love him no matter what you write or say,and you can go and drink the sea and die and we still wouldn't care a hoot about you

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

Rufus Gibbons, DC — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 10:58:21 GMT

When I was eighteen years old you couldn't convince me that I would ever need health insurance and people haven't changed all that much since then. As Krugman says you cannot have universal health care unless it covers everybody. With Obama's plan of letting people wait until they are sick to apply we will end up in forty years with a rash of people retiring who have no insurance.

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

Nick, Austin, Texas — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 11:48:07 GMT

Hillary's been touting her healthcare plan as superior to Senator Barack Obama's, and even went so far as to call Obama's plan a "betrayal" of Democratic values. But let's get realâ€”Hillarycare can't cover any American if it doesn't pass Congress. When universal healthcare is signed into law, it will be the largest expansion of government power since social security passed in 1935. If Democrats in Iowa don't trust her, how is Hillary going to build a bipartisan majority in Congress to pass her plan?

My firm belief, as a Democrat, is that Hillary Clinton cannot pass universal healthcare.

But let's get to this "mandate" nonsense. Senator Clinton is arguing that the only way to get every American covered is if you force every American to buy healthcare. Unfortunately, she hasn't told anybody how she would enforce this mandate. So until she clarifies what exactly she intends to do to enforce this mandate â€“ for example, whether she is going to fine people â€“ her attacks on Obama are more about scoring political points than making a real point.

The truth is, Barack Obama's universal health care plan makes coverage affordable for every single American, he just doesn't agree with Hillary's plan to start by forcing everyone to buy insurance they can't afford.

I think the real question is who can stand up to the special interests, bring Republicans and Democrats together, and actually make their plan a reality? Barack Obama is in the best position to do that because unlike Senator Clinton, he's been standing up to the special interests and bringing people together throughout his career.

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

Jay Kallio — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 11:58:16 GMT

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

truth — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:56:15 GMT

Mark Murray, what you up to ? Obama paid you to say that ? If you are open, post all the posts, don't post only those who for Obama. Let the world hear those who are for Hillary to know the truth.

Obama has no experince, no leadership, no judgement, not qualified. Anyone in this race is better than him Wake up , America ! SHame on your report.

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

Marc, Rovana, CA — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:07:46 GMT

Erz, "...go and drink the sea and die"? This kind of talk does a disservice to Barack Obama. Sure the professor is biased, that's central to being a professor. If you like it might be more fun to say: "Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach." However, no matter how riled you are, wishing death on folks is just not funny nor fun.

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

RKA, IL — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:28:20 GMT

As far as Krugman knocking Obama's mandateless plan as "weak," I do find it interesting that this mimes the Clinton/Penn argument against Obama in general: he is weak and she is tough.

But motives aside, I think the Clinton embrace of the Romney Plan for universal health care does have problems. First of all, how do you enforce the mandate and how much will it cost to do so? Will the allocation of resources devoted to administration and enforcemeent of a mandate be resources that otherswise could have been used to reduce the costs of health care even further? If so, given that car insurance mandates and heatlh care ones in MA have not achieved uninversal coverage, might the Obama strategy of making health care as cheap as possible do just as well if not better than an approach predictated on mandates?

Krugman's analysis that the young and healthy need to subsidize the older and sicker kind of presumes that there is one big pot of money in which to spread risk. But these plans maintain the fragmentation of the diverse private insurance market with government plans...and so the idea that we are all going to be paying into one big pot is not actually true. I am guessing despite the new rules, insurance companies will fight to cherry pick the young and healthy to give them the coverage they are now mandated to have, but will they really be accessible to the chronically ill?

In the roll out of the Clinton Plan, there was quite a bit of excitement from the Health Insurance industry about the idea of an individual mandate. Now, I would hope that progressives like Paul Krugman would at least have a little bit of suspicion when something is being salivated over by the Health Insurance industry. Remember the whole Medicare Rx benefit...something that sounded really good but was a huge transfer of wealth to the drug companies? I fear that this health insurance mandate could be a similar boondogle and I find it highly disappointing that people are assuming that this is the best way to go. It might work if we had a single payer, inclusive, automatic system - and frankly, that's where I am on this issue - but if we are going to retain the role of the private insurance industry, I think we need to think really hard about whether mandates are a wise idea. And for Krugman to call this debate "mudslinging" and "giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform" is ridiculous hyperbole at best and intellectually dishonest partisanship at worst. I wonder if Obama becomes the nominee will Krugman turn into the Pat Caddel of the '08 cycle. You know, the two of them do kind of look alike....

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

Dee of VA — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:41:25 GMT

"I've read Professor Krugman this morning in the NY times, what i see is a liberal militant not a fair and balanced assessment by an economist of different plans."

Jo,

You nailed it. For Krugman and other "Liberal Militant" Senator Obama isn't their Black wet dream. They wanted a 'we takin' over' Black candidate that would assuage their Liberal White guilt, and for them, Obama isn't their candidate. Obama doesn't hate Republicans in the way that old-ass hippies do, so he doesn't pass the White Liberal Black litmus test.

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

Wayne, Silver Spring, MD — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:55:51 GMT

There you go, Ladies and Gents. Here is a "Conscious of Liberal"

Mr. Krugman, you are giving us all liberals and "flip flop" name!

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

avraam jack — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:08:02 GMT

It is possible that Senator Clinton is the best candidate. However, even though any may like the policies that Senator Clinton proposes, they should also consider her record, just as Senator Clinton insists.
.
The last Clinton Administration, when faced with the fact that protection rackets where torturing people with poison and radiation, chose to avoid its responsibilities to incarcerate the criminals and to protect the citizenry.
.
Instead, they made a deal with the criminal gang stalker protection rackets to leave them alone and to consequently abandon the citizenry.
.
Do we want a President who sells out the citizenry for votes?
.
Do we want a President who sends a "crime does pay" message to society?
.
Would you vote for a President who signed nonaggression deals with the KKK or the Nazi party? Gangs that torture with poison and radiation are much like the KKK and Nazi Party.
.
We do not need a sellout President. We need a principled leader President.
.
If you are one of the few who do not know what the above refers to, do a web search for “gang stalking” to see the tip of the dirtberg. Please do it before you decide to reply to my post. Here let me make it easy for you: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22gang+stalking%22.
.

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

3rd Year Law Student — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:13:19 GMT

Actually, Paul Krugman has been the only HONEST voice in the news world since Bush "took" office. How many NBC News hacks fell for the lies that led us into Iraq and still cower in fear when President Bush and Co deserve scrutiny and to be held accountable?

Barack Obama has changed his plan and is morphing away from who he advertised himself to be, gone are the positive, uplifting messages of hope, replaced by attack ads and soundbytes that lack substance.

Krugman, like so many decent Americans is concerned about healthcare for the less fortunate and about the economic future for all. Get off the man and let him do what he does--tell the truth.

NBC ought to try it sometimes instead of fluffing up flip flop innuendo on people who don't deserve it.

Go back into the archives over the last 7 years and pull out President Bush's fateful flip flops and lies and discuss those with all of us.

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

California — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:59:03 GMT

There seems to be a concerted effort building to topple the Clinton Candidacy. she must be really making head way out there. Because, all of a sudden she is being hit from the Post, the NYT, and some Leaders, who you guys, the Mainstream Media, insist on saying they speak for all Americans as if their mouths are prayer books. Go figure.

So with this renewed attacks from the Obama Campaign and the Press, (The Washington Post was the most disgraceful) has she now become the front runner without the adulation and coronation that was bestowed upon Sen. Obama without his really saying anything of substance? Is this a double standard, peeking out its ugly head?

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

H P Boston — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 17:17:04 GMT

All these comments about private health insurance, mandated or not, skirt the central, structural issue; private health insurance can no longer provide affordable [minimally] comprehensive coverage. If there is a mandate only a slightly greater number of people will sign up for it,like with mandated car insurance, and the Massachusetts mandated plan is bearing that prediction out. Their costs are far higher than predicted and this year alone they face a shortfall of $147 million over the funds budgeted for their subsidized citizens, while the premiums for the few who have signed up for unsubsidized plans are facing increases of 10-12% next year. The many who have no coverage at all face the loss of the state's free care pool, which has been depleted to pay for insurance subsidies, and public hospitals are reeling from the cut backs. They are the last resort for the uninsured, the final safety net before hitting the ground, and now they are gone.

We must eliminate the private health insurers from the mix and provide a single payer "Medicare for All" program which will enjoy the economies of scale that only a huge government program can achieve, along with the up to 20% overall savings on administrative waste the private insurers now impose. Taiwan eliminated their failing private health insurance system and instituted a single payer system that covered all their citizens for the same amount they were spending to cover far fewer, as we are.

Neither mandated or unmandated proposals will work, and the "political feasibility" of unworkable health reform proposals is moot.
Jay Kallio (Sent Saturday, December 01, 2007 6:58 AM)
--------------------------------------------------
Jay you are absolutely correct. Your post is most helpful to those who think MANDATES and INSURANCE COMPANIES are the answer. They are not, Medicare for all is the best solution. I think the battle is brewing. The for profit hospitals and for profit Insurance Co's along with the HUGE for profit drug companies will not go quietly.
The big money to Republicans for campaigns comes from the pharmaceutical and Insurance industries. The Republicans are not talking up plans for ANY health care solutions. And Wall street and investment companies are giving billions to candidates who support the fleecing of America.

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

Akhinaten — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 17:35:29 GMT

To succeed passing a partisan health plan you need to have a qualified majority a simple majority just would not do, is Hillary going to win with 10- 20 percent margin the answer is yes if she was running against BUSH or Cheney. But against anyone else she loses the election.
If we are really serious about giving people a universal coverage, then we have to make a health plan that is not partisan that would have a chance passing in to law. The republicans would love to run against Hillary and here socialist health plan and the fact that people would be forced to have them. The illusion of freedom is very important to the Americans and this is what the republicans will use against Hillary’s plan they will say that it forces people and denies them of their rights to choose.
Democrats live with the illusion that they running against BUSH in this election, they think that just because he has a 32% approval rating that it means that the democrats have 68% approval this is of course not the case.
Obama rising

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

mike, dallas, TX — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:07:29 GMT

I think Krugman is fool of himself. First he bestows upon himself the title of the "conscience of a liberal" then he becomes an attack dog for Hillary writing ridiculous pieces week after week. Mr Krugman, let me say this one more time: You don't own the "conscience" of the progressive movement. There are many more bright people who have newer and different approaches to problems. It is Hillary, Krugman and conventional thinking versus Obama, the future and new ways of approaching problems.

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

Jerome, Queens, NY — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 16:40:28 GMT

Obama has a carefully thought out idea that has a good possibly to make its way through Congress, while keeping in mind that many many people are totally opposed to any kind of mandated health insurance. Hillary's plan was thought up by political advisers who found through polling that many Democratic voters really like the word "universal." Unfortunately for the people who are suffering because of this health care crisis, her plan has zero chance of getting through a Republican filibuster in Congress--even if makes its way past Democrats. She couldn't even get her plan out of a Democratic committee the last time she tried. We will have the same result after her term in office as we had after her husband's term, no progress, higher drug costs and more people without health insurance. I find incredible that anyone takes her plan seriously. It is nothing more than political posturing, and the fact is she knows darn well her plan will never pass Congress. Not to mention it is totally impractical and unenforceable and will only hurt the very people she claims she wants to help. Let me get this straight, she wants to force people to buy something that they can't afford because, according to her, they are simply not buying insurance because they don't feel like it? Hillary, not all of us are lucky enough to have have your buddy Rupert Murdoch conducting fund raisers for us! I imagine that people who support her plan already have health insurance, or are too naive and uninformed to know better. As someone with no health insurance because I REALLY can not afford it, it makes me sick to watch her play politics with something that affects my life so profoundly.

Krugman on Obama -- then and now

F. Igwealor — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:34:04 GMT

I've now beginning to suspect that the opinions of Dr. Paul Krugman, who used to be a top advisor to Enron, is bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Why else would he stoop down to the level of personal attack that was so much fun for Hillary Clinton?
I know several other Phds in economics that believe that mandates don't and won't work on Healthcare unless the insurance is affordable in the first place. The America that rid itself of "free loaders" like Krugman would want is not the United States of America, the land of the free and the home of the brave.

This is the same reason why Hillary failed in 1993, because then, she, like Krugman now went straight into demonizing everyone that disagreed with their opinion. Thank God that Obama is currently inching up in the polls to save the democrats from another embarrassment on Healthcare from Hillary Clinton and her paid and semi-paid advisers.